Those of you who were on my Zgram list in the early days
after the Zundel arrest know that one of our first steps was to contact
Amnesty International offices in Canada specifically, and internationally in
general, and ask for intervention. They must have received fistfuls of
faxes. You will remember the nasty hostility we encountered and their
initial statement that they were not prepared to lift one little finger to
even look into the Zundel situation. They are nothing but a Zionist front,
as are so many of those outfits parading on Main Street, America with their
fig leaf called Human Rights. To find out what Ernst Zundel thinks of them,
take a look at http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
and scroll down to the second sketch.
As far as I know, there have been two official documents
outlining the Amnesty International position about Ernst. I don't have these
documents at my fingertips right now, and I don't have the time to look. I
remember the first statement being out-and-out Zionist-flavored, really
disgusting and insulting, and the second one being a bit more carefully
crafted - but still, in essence, saying NYET.
Now they have come out with a third. They don't mention
Ernst, but from what I have read in the Canadian papers - that there are
five people held in Canada in maximum detention on a security certificate -
those five did not include the name of Ernst Zundel. In the Open Letter
below, they say there are six. Unless the CSIS goons have nabbed themselves
another victim, that means that Amnesty International is weakening and now
includes Ernst Zundel.
In this Open letter, they still do a St. Vitus Dance around
the Western world's best known thought criminal, but indirectly they seem to
be referring to Ernst as a specific case to be included. Later in the day,
if I have time, I will fax them and ask them. I am not holding my breath
that I will receive a reply.
Here is the latest. Take note how they still talk out of
both sides of their mouths, the hypocrites:
OPEN LETTER FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA TO ANNE
MCLELLAN ABOUT SECURITY CERTIFICATES
http://www.adilinfo.org/amnestyletter.htm
The Honourable Anne McLellan,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness
340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8
By fax: 990-9077
March 31, 2004
Dear Deputy Prime Minister McLellan,
We are writing this open letter to you to underscore
Amnesty International's serious concerns with respect to the security
certificate provisions that have been part of Canada's immigration
legislation for a number of years.
Over the past several years Amnesty International has, on
numerous occasions, written to the Canadian government, highlighting
individual cases in which we considered that the security certificate
process was resulting in violations of a number of fundamental human
rights. We are aware of at least six individuals who are currently being
held pursuant to security certificates. These individuals have been in
detention for an extended period now, close to four years in one case.
We repeat Amnesty International's concerns below and urge
that you take immediate steps to reform the security certificate process
to bring it into full compliance with Canada's international human rights
obligations. In doing so we remind the government that the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act itself, in s. 3(3)(f), requires that the law be
"construed and applied in a manner that complies with international
human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory."
Unfair Proceedings
Amnesty International is of the view that the security
certificate process may very well result in arbitrary detention and thus
violate the fundamental right to liberty. The process does not conform to
a number of essential international legal standards, which are meant to
safeguard against the very possibility of arbitrary detention. Detainees
are not informed of the precise allegations against them. They see only a
summary of the evidence that is being used against them. Evidence may be
presented in court in the absence of the detainee or his or her counsel.
The detainee is not afforded a right to examine any and all witnesses who
have been the source of that evidence. Furthermore, the Federal Court
considers only the "reasonableness" of the decision to issue a
security certificate and does not substantively review it.
Amnesty International recognizes that special measures may
need to be taken in cases involving security matters, but any such
measures must be consistent with international law. We realize, for
example, that the government may have concerns about protecting the
identity of certain sources or witnesses. If so, specific and targeted
measures should be taken to address those particular concerns, rather than
through the widesweeping approach of the current legislation. In any case,
in view of the potential for a wide interpretation by the detaining
authorities of security information which may be the basis for a decision
to detain, and because decisions to detain in such cases are often based
on a prediction about an individual's future actions, it is imperative
that there be full and effective judicial scrutiny of such decisions,
beyond the test of "reasonableness" that is the present
standard.
Amnesty International has repeatedly drawn attention,
worldwide, to instances where the failure to comply with international
human rights standards regarding fair trials has led to wrongful detention
and other human rights violations. In the present circumstances Amnesty
International considers that individuals detained pursuant to a security
certificate are effectively denied their right to prepare a defence and
mount a meaningful challenge to the lawfulness of their detention. This is
in contravention of Canada's obligations under articles 9 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
While some of the provisions in articles 9 and 14 apply
specifically to individuals who have been formally charged with a criminal
offence, which is not the case in the issuance of a security certificate,
they are nevertheless widely recognized as reflecting general principles
of law and are relevant in so far as they set out the basic essential
elements of a fair hearing. Furthermore some of the provisions apply to
all detainees, such as those guaranteeing the right to challenge the
lawfulness of their detention. That right to challenge must be in accord
with recognized international fair trial standards.
Other international standards highlight the importance of
ensuring that all detainees enjoy the same level of fairness. The UN Body
of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1988
establish that anyone who is detained shall be given an "effective
opportunity" to be heard by a judicial or other authority, has the
right to defend him or herself, and shall received "prompt and full
communication" of any order of detention "together with the
reasons therefore." The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,
adopted in 1990, underscore that lawyers must be given access to
"appropriate information, files and documents" so that they can
provide their clients with "effective legal assistance." Amnesty
International considers that these standards require that the detainee be
given detailed reasons as to why he or she is detained, access to the full
evidence that is being used against them, and a substantive hearing to
examine the lawfulness of the detention.
On the basis of these concerns Amnesty International has
repeatedly urged the Canadian government to reform the security
certificate process so as to bring it into line with Canada's
international human rights obligations, including by ensuring a
substantive review of the reasons for detention and by making all evidence
available to the individual detained so that any potentially unfounded
allegations can be effectively and meaningfully challenged.
Protection against Refoulement
Amnesty International is doubly concerned about the
fundamentally flawed and unfair security certificate process because it is
frequently applied in cases where the likely outcome is deportation to a
country where the individual concerned is at serious risk of torture or
other grave human rights violations. Given such potentially severe
consequences, it is all the more critical that the security certificate
process fully comply with international human rights standards governing
arrest and detention.
International law is absolute, no one should be deported
to a country "where there are substantial grounds for believing that
he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture." The
United Nations Committee against Torture, in 2000, informed Canada that it
is a violation of the UN Convention against Torture to deport an
individual to face a substantial risk of torture, including when there are
security concerns. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Suresh
case, recognized that international law provides absolute protection
against being returned to torture, but left open a possibility that such
returns might be allowed under the Canadian Charter of Rights, in
extraordinary circumstances which the Court did not define.
There is a mechanism in Canadian law which requires an
assessment to be carried out by an immigration officer prior to
deportation to determine whether an individual does face a substantial
risk of torture. However, if a security certificate has been issued and
found to be "reasonable" by a judge, that possibility is no
longer available to the individual concerned. Both before and since the
Suresh ruling Amnesty International has urged the Canadian government to
amend Canadian law so as to clearly prohibit any individual being returned
to country where there is a substantial risk of torture.
Conclusion
Amnesty International is very much aware that the
government alleges that individuals detained pursuant to security
certificates constitute a danger to the security of Canada. However,
Amnesty International urges Canada to adopt a response to security
concerns that does not result in violations of such fundamental human
rights as the protections against arbitrary detention and torture.
Canada's response should instead focus on bringing individuals to justice
in criminal proceedings that meet international fair trial standards. That
is the best means of ensuring both that both justice and security will
prevail.
Sincerely,
Alex Neve Michel Frenette
Secretary General Directeur
Amnesty International Canada Amnistie Internationale
Canada
http://www.adilinfo.org
